THE MORALITY OF HAPPINESS. 537 



why Warsaw should not furnish a large share of the six million bar- 

 rels of home-made salt that are required every year, even if Syracuse 

 gives a million and a half and Saginaw three and a quarter millions 

 toward the product. 



THE MOKALITY OF HAPPmESS. 



By THOMAS FOSTER. 

 CABE OF OTHERS AS A DUTY. 



I ENTER now on a portion of my subject where I shall seem less 

 at issue with those who repeat with their lips, and fancy they 

 hold in their hearts (though they never think of following in their 

 lives), certain rules of conduct in which due care of self is treated as 

 objectionable and evil is spoken of as not to be resisted but encour- 

 aged. I shall still be at issue with those who assert, apparently with- 

 out thinking — certainly without alleging any reasons — that conduct 

 and duty are not matters for scientific discussion at all, that they have 

 no scientific aspect, and that such considerations as the progress and 

 improvement of life, the increase of the fullness and happiness of life, 

 and so forth, have no bearing whatever, and should have none, on our 

 opinion as to what is right or wrong. But we may very well afford 

 to disregard objections having so little relation to actual facts. Every 

 one really guides his conduct in large part by such considerations as 

 many thus allege to have no proper bearing on conduct ; nor can any 

 one draw a line beyond which such considerations must not operate : 

 when any one has tried to do so, and perhaps imagines he has suc- 

 ceeded, then I shall simply meet his objection with the remark that 

 he need consider what I have said and what I may hereafter say as 

 only applying to such parts of conduct as he has admitted to be within 

 the range of scientific discussion. 



Let us take, now, the doctrine that while due care of self comes to 

 each man, and indeed to every creature having life, as essentially ^r5^, 

 yet due care of others — though second to due care of self — is as abso- 

 lutely essential. The two are interdependent — and that to such de- 

 gree that neither can exist without the other. The great difference 

 in the treatment which science has to extend to the two forms of duty 

 — the egoistic and the altruistic — resides in this, that whereas in in- 

 sisting on egoistic duties science is really insisting on what every 

 normally-constituted man is already apt to attend to, in insisting on 

 altruistic duties science is insisting on duties wofully neglected, despite 

 the fervor with which they are verbally enjoined. Many reject ego- 

 istic duties in words, who look so carefully after their own interests 

 in action that those who inculcate due care of self as a duty are 

 ashamed to have to admit such utter selfishness as among the results 



